[Edit: I've improved this post to make it even worse Stalinist linkbait.]

I won't waste time condemning Anders Behring Breivik for being a political murderer. Our society, right or left, has no standing whatsoever for condemning political murder. Che murdered over twice as many of his political enemies. He's a hero to millions.

No one who condones Che, Stalin, Mao, or any other leftist murderer, has any right to ask anyone else to dissociate himself from a rightist who didn't even make triple digits. ABB is a terrorist. Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. Nelson Mandela is the most revered living political figure on our beautiful blue planet. Besides just killing people with bombs, here's the sort of thing "armed struggle" meant to St. Mandela:

On the record, I note, St. Mandela "opposed" the ANC necklacing of "traitors." No - possessed of infinite reserves of human compassion, this living symbol of man's global unity favored a far milder punishment. He just wanted to cut off their noses. Do you need a picture of that, too?

If you ask me to condemn them both, because terrorism is inherently wrong, I can respect you, though I may ask you to think harder. (I don't think terrorism is inherently wrong. I just think right-wing terrorism is inherently wrong.) If you ask me to condemn Anders Breivik, but adore Nelson Mandela, perhaps you have a mother you'd like to fuck.

Brown Scare! Brown Scare! The Brown Scare is on! But then again, when hasn't it been on? Certainly not since your grandpa was a little boy. Can't we get another two minutes' hate for the Nazi Peril? The world progressive community had sure as hell better hope it can raise a new global hard-on over Anders Behring Breivik. If you have Claudia Schiffer on your lap and a gram of Viagra up your nose, and you're still limp, age has finally defeated you.

Age has certainly not defeated us. So as an act of collective defiance, we have to start by praising ABB, in every way we possibly can. What ways are those? Not many.

We can note the only thing he didn't screw up. At least he shot communists, not Muslims. He gored the matador and not the cape. While still basically animal behavior (especially when it comes to the 15-year-olds - is there a 15-year-old in the world who isn't a communist?), it's more than I'd expect from a rogue Gates of Vienna commenter. We should also praise ABB for his spectacular stupidity, which I'd like to think can be a learning experience for the entire right - from Instapundit to Stormfront. You can relax now, because we won't be praising him again.

But we do need to remember that terrorism, left or right, is a legitimate military tactic. Just as a nation that idolizes Che has no genuine moral grounds for condemning ABB, a nation that annihilated Dresden has no genuine moral grounds for condemning OBL. We're not exactly history's pure and precious little snowflake.

For instance, the entire political landscape of postwar France - closely allied, of course, to the great and good of the noble, innocent, grieving Norwegian Labor Party - was created by the 10,000 murders of the épuration sauvage. If you lived in France in 1945 and your political record was anywhere to the right of Larry Beria, you had a pretty good chance of being murdered. Your murderers had zero chance of being punished. Indeed Norway had its own purge, though nowhere near so bloody. I've never seen any liberal pundit shed so much as a milliliter of sterile saline for these events. When they start, I might begin to take their deep moral convictions a little more seriously.

Terrorism - the random killing of defenseless civilians - is an act of war. It needs to be judged by the laws of war, not the laws of peace. ABB's personal hero was the Norwegian resistance fighter Max Manus. Would Max Manus have hesitated to single-handedly wipe out a Nazi Party youth camp? Would Norwegian history books describe him as a hero for doing so? Of course they would. It is impossible to go directly from hypocrisy to morality. A cleansing bath of amoral realism must intervene.

Anders Behring Breivik made war on communist Norway, just as Max Manus made war on fascist Norway, just as Osama bin Laden made war on imperial America, just as Nelson Mandela made war on apartheid South Africa. Terrorism is the normal mode of warfare in our delightful post-WWII utopia. That is, it is the most common way to use force to achieve political objectives. Condemning terrorism, as such, is in every case retarded. You are simply condemning the 20th century. Fine, but where does this leave you?

So let's judge ABB - but let's judge him by the natural and historical laws of war. Ironically, by the (pre-20C) laws of war, ABB does quite poorly.

Whose terrorism is more morally legitimate? The right-wing terrorism of ABB, or the left-wing terrorism of OBL? As a rightist, I am obviously far more in sympathy with the goals of ABB. But by the natural law of war, which no man made and no man can unmake, 9/11 was far more legitimate as a military act than the Utoye massacre. ABB is worse than OBL.

Why? Because the law of war is that all war's carnage, whether it affects "soldiers" or "civilians" (a completely arbitrary distinction) is legitimate if and only if it serves a military purpose. What is a military purpose? Since the purpose of all war is the transfer of political power, a military purpose is a political purpose.

Slaughter that serves no purpose is sadistic, insane, terrible. Slaughter for purpose is the very nature of war, and cannot be separated from it. Since right-wing terrorism does not work, it is illegitimate as a tactic of war. Since left-wing terrorism does work, it is perfectly legitimate. Thus, OBL is legitimate and ABB is not.

Islamic terrorism (which is in every case left-wing - as you can see every time Osama quotes Chomsky) is legitimate because it's effective. It's effective because its political result is to expand the political power and privilege of Muslims and their progressive sponsors. Right-wing terrorism is illegitimate because it's ineffective. It's ineffective because its political result is to contract the political freedom and influence of conservatives (extremist or moderate).

If it was militarily possible to free Norway from Eurocommunism by killing a hundred communists, or a thousand communists, or ten thousand communists, we might have an interesting moral debate over whether this butcher's bill was worth paying. Since it is not possible to free Norway from communism by killing a hundred communists, ie, roughly 0.01% of all the communists in Norway, leaving the other 99.99% with a permanent raging hard-on, no debate is possible. The verdict is clear: illegitimate, ineffective and wrong. I condemn Anders Behring Breivik! So there.

Of course, there are plenty of historical contexts in which right-wing terrorism did work - for instance, Germany in the 1920s. In these contexts, it was legitimate. Conversely, left-wing terrorism was ineffective in the fascist nations, and hence illegitimate.

Why does left-wing terrorism work, and right-wing terrorism not? As Carl Schmitt explained in Theory of the Partisan, terrorist, guerrilla or partisan warfare is never effective on its own. While an effective military strategy, it is only effective as one fork of a pincer attack. The terrorist succeeds when, and only when, he is allied to what Schmitt called an interested third party - either a military or political force.

Left-wing terrorism succeeds as the violent arm of a political assault that would probably be overwhelming in any case. In every case, the terrorist plays Mutt in a Mutt-and-Jeff act. Right-wing terrorism in the modern world is cargo-cult terrorism: Mutt without Jeff. Indeed, in historical cases where right-wing terrorism has been successful, in every case we see it aligned with powerful forces within the state. Right-wing terrorism worked in Weimar Germany, for instance, or prewar Japan, because it aligned with fascist conspiracies in the security forces. Somehow I don't see a lot of that in 2011 Norway.

Thus, we note that there are two responses to terrorism: the natural response and the unnatural response. The natural response is to take revenge on the terrorist and everyone even remotely resembling him. If he is a Muslim, the natural response is to chastise the Muslims. When Grynzspan, a Jew, kills the German vom Rath, the German people must chastise the Jews. And, of course, when a right-wing piece of filth slaughters the cream of the Norwegian Komsomol, all racists and reactionaries are automatically suspect.

The unnatural response - which will not happen by itself, but can be made to happen by a sufficiently powerful psychological-warfare machine - is to look instead at the grievances of the attacker. After all, no one commits terrorism unless he has some complaint. No complaint - no terrorism. Thus while the Nazi response to the terrorism of Grynzspan is to collectively punish the Jews, the Atlantic response to the terrorism of Grynzspan (ineffective and thus illegitimate) is to attribute it to the injustices suffered by the Jews. This of course is also our response to the terrorism of Mandela (effective and thus legitimate).

Actually, there was no nuance at all in the response of the great and the good, the same wise and trusted organs now deploring ABB with the sound of a thousand jet engines, to Nelson Mandela. There's no room for nuance when a saint is in the room. But St. Osama is a bridge too far.

So in typical cases, when the cause is good but the means a little too gory, the interested third party of a successful terrorist campaign adopts a strategy of dualism. Here is our Mutt-and-Jeff act: the unnatural response. We can always tell a Mutt-and-Jeff strategy because Mutt and Jeff have the same demands. Mutt tells you to satisfy these demands, or die. Jeff tells you to satisfy these demands, to "take the wind out of Mutt's sails." Also, Jeff and Mutt are frequently found at the same parties, enjoying the hell out of one another's company.

Thus, Islamic terrorism is productive, because it results in increasing communal deference to the Islamic community and its progressive allies. Fascist terrorism is counterproductive, because it results in increasing communal intolerance toward the fascist community - which of course has no conservative allies.

Rather, the community - whose information source consists almost exclusively of progressive organs - adopts a monist approach, ascribing guilt by association to everyone even remotely resembling a fascist. Ie, everyone to the right of Mitt Romney. Since the monist response is the natural response, it is not at all difficult to orchestrate. The story writes itself.

This gets us to the essence of what's wrong with ABB's thinking. The error of ABB goes far beyond his decision to run wild with a Glock. This is just his specific error.

His general error is what Patri Friedman calls folk activism - a broad pattern of ineffective or counterproductive political action which extends across the entire right-wing spectrum, from moderate libertarians to hardcore neo-Nazis. It's not just that running wild with a Glock is stupid. Almost everything the right does is stupid. Very few rightists are running wild with a Glock, but most are in some way or other guilty of folk activism.

Why did ABB think right-wing terrorism could work? Because ABB grew up in a leftist world, he thinks like a leftist. His heroes are leftist heroes - Max Manus, not Vidkun Quisling. Terrorism works for leftists - and so do many other forms of democratic activism.

Terrorism is anarchism: a shattering of order. Is there such a thing as right-wing anarchism? Of course not: the concept is retarded. If the word "right" means anything, its goal is not to shatter order, but impose it.

Who governs Norway? The Norwegian Labor Party? If an ABB wanted to accomplish something useful, he shouldn't have decimated the Norwegian Labor Party. Rather, he should have joined the Norwegian Labor Party. After all, Chinese communism became fascist - why can't Norwegian communism? ABB could have been Norway's Deng Xiaoping, not its Timothy McVeigh. That's the difference between action and folk activism.

Speaking of stubborn multiculturalists. I remember a story from the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten for approx. 6 months ago very good (I find, unfortunately, not this).

I can remember that it was a school in the City Center East, in a class where there was only a single Norwegian boy again (the majority were Muslims). Most others had taken their children out of school. The mother of this boy was, of course, a hardcore Marxist who died and life was to prove that multiculturalism and Islam will be functioning. She refused to move to another area or take him out of school. Her son would prove once and for all that Islamophobes on documents and other cultural conservatives were wrong and that it WAS possible.

The poor boy was harassed for several years until satisfactory one day he began to self harm. He told his marxistmor that he wanted to die. Only after this the mother realized that she had been wrong. The result was that they moved to another neighborhood and changing schools.

So one should not underestimate the fact how "hardcore" some of these kulturmarxistene is. I'm sure some of these actually had sacrificed their own children just to prove this sick Marxist theory.

But there are, after all, some justice up in it all. The positive for us, the cultural conservatives, is that we are among the first to protect our children, we move to safe areas where our children do not need to live in dhimmitude.

It is often the children of the boundless naive and Marxist kids who end up as victims. The irony here is that those who survive with psyche intact ends up as a dedicated cultural conservatives or to with which etnosentrerte of great frustration for their kulturmarxistiske or humanist parents:))

I have left Google's delightful Norwegianisms intact. I'm sure you can translate them.

Note this emphasis on victimology. ABB is following the exact script of left-wing terrorism. Why does he commit his bloody deeds? Because he is a victim. He is persecuted. Personally, in fact:

Non-Muslim youth in Oslo aged 12-18 are in a particularly vulnerable situation in terms of harassment of Muslim youth. I myself am born and raised here and chose out of necessity to the friendships / alliances with A and B team to move freely. The alternative is that you stick to your neighborhood or west side. I know of hundreds of incidents where non-Muslims were robbed, beaten and harassed by Muslim gangs.

My friend aged 12-17 was Pakistan that I was one of the protected sphere "potatoes" who had protection. But I saw hypocrisy at close range and was disgusted. Muslim gangs have / could devastate free (racism / Jihad behavior), while all attempts "potatoes" do / did to make the same thread are systematically stamped on racism and deconstructed by the local police.

Of course ABB and his fellow "potatoes" (perhaps any Nordic readers can enlighten us on the meaning - is this Norwegian for "wigga"?) are victims. When your country is conquered by ruthless communists, which import a new people to oppress the old one, you don't think you're going to be robbed, beaten and harassed in your own former capital city? Hypocrisy is a prerogative of the rulers. Submission is a duty of the ruled. Bend over, Norwegians.

Don't forget, the British were the first to violate Norway's sovereignty in 1940. Was Norway liberated? Sure - she was liberated by German fascism in 1940, then liberated back by Allied communism in 1945. Arguably, Norway has been a tool of British diplomacy since the Royal Navy liberated her from Denmark. Norway is the bargirl of Scandinavia. She's so liberated, she's lubricated. Just slap her butt and she presents obligingly. It's only a question of who will liberate her next - the Russians or the Chinese. I'm sure she can't wait.

What ABB is doing here is, in plain non-Google English, whining. Whining is the act either of a slave, or a bitch. The slave whines to his master. Master, the overseer is beating me! And so, the protected minority whines to the communist judge. Whitey call' me a bad name! But ABB would be a free man - who, then is he whining to? He's whining to nobody. He's whining because, having grown up on heroic Nelson Mandela, he thinks he can free himself and his nation by a combination of (a) whining and (b) mass murder.

The entire spectrum of right-wing folk activism, from pointless whining through spectacular terrorism, is what Roissy would call "beta." It is strictly man-bitch behavior. Look, if you think Norway should be ruled by patriotic, axe-wielding, Odin-worshipping Vikings rather than Euroquisling kulturmarxistene, I agree! A gelded and humiliated Norway, mentally sodomized by her raceless, epicene internationalist masters as she gradually morphs into Somalia North, is a pathetic and sickening spectacle. Haakon the Fairhaired could not possibly approve.

What would Haakon the Fairhaired do about it? That would depend on whether he had any viable options, or didn't. If he could do something that worked, he would. If not, he wouldn't. He certainly was neither a man-bitch, nor a mass-murderer.

What strikes the reactionary observer about all this beta folk-activism, harmless or lethal, is its enormous intellectual timidity, to the point of cowardice. Do you want to turn back the clock in Norway? If so, why are you stuck in the 20th century? Do you hate communism? Why are all your models for dissent and change and rebellion straight out of the communist playbook?

A restoration of traditional, pre-liberal or even pre-Christian Norway is a herculean task of social and political engineering. It cannot possibly be carried on without absolute sovereignty. Indeed, the task of eradicating liberal institutions and liberal culture in Norway, though tremendous (and itself requiring absolute sovereignty), pales before the much more difficult task of recreating a genuine Norwegian society that isn't a ridiculous theme-park joke.

The idea that any incremental political change, achieved by any sort of "activism" (from mass whining to mass murder), can advance this project in any way at all, is inherently retarded. It's as if you wanted to replace your horse with a BMW, so you start by cutting off one of your horse's hooves and whittling it into a crude, wheel-like disc.

Rather, any significant regime change can happen only in one step. The stable must become a garage. There is no way to have a combined stable and garage, which contains a means of transportation which is half a horse and half a BMW. There is no way to have a Norway which is half communist and half Crusader, let alone 99.9% communist and 0.1% Crusader.

Furthermore, it's very hard to imagine any successful regime change which involves killing, imprisoning, deporting or otherwise liquidating the former ruling elite. You'd certainly have to bump off a lot more Young Pioneers if you want to eradicate Norwegian communism this way. I will certainly concede that it is theoretically possible to conduct regime change via aristocide, if you're going to be really thorough about the matter. But think of the impact on the gene pool. Does Norway really need a Pol Pot?

Rather, if you're going to change Norway into something new, you need the present ruling class of Norway to join and follow you. Or at least, you'll need their children. Rape is beta. Seduction is alpha. Don't slaughter the youth camp - recruit the youth camp.

After all, how in 2011 can anyone genuinely, truly, believe in "kulturmarxisme"? They think they do - just like that pretty girl thinks she's looking for a sensitive, new-age guy. But actually what brought the cream of young Norway to Utoye was the blind, eternal human quest for good old political power. Can you find a way to offer them that? Haakon the Fairhaired would...

132 Comments:

I reason by analogy from watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

"Rather, any significant regime change can happen only in one step. The stable must become a garage. There is no way to have a combined stable and garage, which contains a means of transportation which is half a horse and half a BMW."

I'm more impressed with the technique of the Socialist Police..."we don't carry guns, must find gun", "helicopter? what's that?" "OK, let's drive there...must not exceed speed limit", "boat? where is boat?". When push comes to shove, I don't think these Red Clowns are going to be that difficult to take down.

I think that you were a little bit too quick to accept the official narrative of this Norwegian moron as a "right wing terrorist". Because, he is a nationalist, but of a very peculiar kind: he reportedly read both the classical liberal and progressive books. However, when you look at what kind of classical liberalism he likes - it's John Stewart Mill! A progressive, social-democratic 'bleeding heart' liberal! Not at all the old fashioned, reactionary liberals like Hume, Lord Acton or Tocqueville. He quoted an elitist invective of J. S. Mill on his Facebook page! And don't forget that Mill was a champion of a nationally and religiously homogenous state, who argued that the multicultural states cannot survive. You don't need to be a fascist in order to believe in that bigoted nationalist bullshit.

"Islamic terrorism (which is in every case left-wing)"What if it's anti-communist? There is no more effective an anti-communist than an islamist. And if you read OBL's writings, he considers the Saudi Royal Family to be commie-symps!

Ivan, the article you linked to makes clear that he quit the party after he started adopting nationalist and anti-multicultural views.

The one thing that can be said about ABB is he chose the right victims. Attacking immigrants would have only awakened the ruling classes fierce love for alienism. A direct attack will probably confound them.

But it's foolish and non-productive without the pincer movement that Mencius has talked about. All right wing politicians and personalities in Norway will now be coerced into utterly condemning ABB, but if they're smart they will be coy about it and not get defensive.

I've departed from the questioning phase and begun feeling quite conclusively: believing completely in left/right - leaning back on it all the way - is a big mistake. This new essay from MM is valuable inasmuch as we can get a great deal out of it without going in for any complete leaning-back.

Perhaps every concept or opposition breaks down under extremes, or many or most do - it's just that left/right breaks down a shitload sooner. As does romanticism/classicism. Both of those oppositions are hugely useful, and perhaps essential, but you can't depend on them like some kind of a rock or floor. Unless you can make a perfectly precise definition AND test-stomp it 100 times from 100 directions, something I see very few people trying to do. It's transparently evident that 'order' vs 'disorder' will not do as an ironclad and pretty much /perfect/ definition, as fruitful a line of thought as it may nevertheless be. For example, suppose the present regime simply quadrupled its popo - presumably crime rates would respond strongly. Suppose we abandon our foreign policy and fiscal excesses. It's not clear how the new USA would be disorderly, but we would hesitate to call it rightist. Since Norway probably doesn't have a bad foreign policy or severe fiscal problems, in that country the conversion to order could by made just by the quadruple popo. But a lack of street violence and burglary would not make it all that different. It would be the same.

I honestly don't see how anyone can disagree. If someone does, great, but I believe he is wasting his time.

I greatly enjoyed debating Michael on whether fascism was left or right, and UJ on Napoleon. Now TGGP brings us a third left/right koan that I little doubt is equally unresolvable.

What if it's anti-communist? There is no more effective an anti-communist than an islamist.

Throughout the Cold War, "Islamic" terrorism was largely pro-Soviet; the Soviets backed them (armed, trained, advised, and directed them) as proxies against the West, and also as proxies of their proxies (e.g. Syria, Libya, and later, Iran).

The Afghan resistance to the Soviets in the 1980s was not anti-Communist so much as anti-Soviet. The Paks were creatures of the Chinese (who were Communists then as now) and the Afghan resistance were creatures of the Paks. Ergo, the Afghan resistance was objectively pro-ChiCom. We simply piggybacked on this because it was in our interest to punish the Soviets just as it was in the Chinese interest; but the whole time the Paks, not we, controlled the resistance.

Since the Soviets left Afghanistan, "Islamic" terrorism has been objectively pro-Communist (i.e., anti-American, pro-ChiCom, pro-Russian). Everything Al Qaeda wants - US out of the Middle East, destruction of Israel - is the same as what the Russians and Chinese want.

I find Moldbug's analysis spot on. Left wing terrorism is a genuine cry: we are the oppressed, we will destroy the powerful. This society is no good, we must be rid of it. I hate those in power, their authority must be subverted.

Right wing terrorism, like this guy, has a subtle contradiction: I love my country, but I'm destroying it. I respect those in power, but I will subvert them. I want to protect my Nordic heritage, so I will kill Nordic children.

This guy Behring wrote a 1,500 page essay to try to justify his disrespect for the things he loves by placing it in context of a greater good. But I, personally, doubt that any good can be achieved: this is not the sort of behavior that unites people and drives society to the right. The best way to prove the worth of civilization to your countrymen is by acting civilized.

Jankovic, the Norwegian Progress Party of which the terrorist used to be a member is a "conservative liberal" party. From Wikipedia:

Founded in 1973 largely as an anti-tax movement, the party highly values individual rights and supports the downsizing of bureaucracy and increased market economy,[5] although it also supports an increased use of the uniquely Norwegian Oil Fund to invest in infrastructure.[6] The party in addition seeks a more restrictive immigration policy and tougher integration and law and order measures.

One of my favorite characters is Mikhail Bermshtam, the "self-educated demographer" of the Helskinki Group who estimated it would take the assassination of 20,000 key Party officials to liberate Russia. Unfortunately this thesis was never put to the test.

A violent attack on the system would have to proceed in such a way- identify the key players and slowly, patiently, rub them out. No fanfare, no publicity, no demands, no manifestos. The bench is not deep.

But it's because the bench is not deep that the system is destroying itself by itself. The people running it now are nothing like the real aristocrats who ran things two generations ago. It's believed that going to Harvard qualifies you to run things, because the people who ran things before had gone to Harvard. But they went to Harvard because they were already members of the elite, going to Harvard (or Yale or Princeton) didn't make them members of the elite.

And so we get we get the moderately bright, angry, sensitive, introspective honor students like Barry Obama running things. The gentleman knows his yeomen; but Barry nor his cohort are gentlemen, they are clerks who excelled at the exams, the Lisa Simpsons of the nation. Barry can't negotiate effectively with an ordinary Midwest congressman; not what you expect from a master of the universe. The system still rules without question, but it is looking more foolish and irrelevant than it can afford to to survive indefinitely.

Check out this forbes piece before it gets pulled (and it will get pulled, because the forbes blogger wants to 'understand' the motivations of the terrorist): http://blogs.forbes.com/abigailesman/2011/07/23/what-really-lies-behind-the-oslo-attacks-and-why-it-may-happen-again/

I think you underestimate the effectiveness and success of right wing terrorism.

Consider Timothy McViegh. He exploded a large bomb to protest Ruby Ridge and Waco. After that, no more Ruby Ridges, no more Wacos.

If incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco had continued, the Tea Party would have been impossible.

When democracy becomes unworkable, right wing terrorism can ensure that the last government to win a genuinely democratic election is a right wing government, can keep democracy going till it yields a right wing result.

"Potato" is here used as a derogatory term used by foreigners about Norwegians. As Moldbug guessed, it's something like "wigga". Its derivation is unrelated to watermelon. Rather, the potato was a very common Norwegian food until recently. Imagine Ireland's Potato Famine without the Famine.

--

Anon and on and on said:>"What ever are these groups' budgets for?"

Self-perpetuation by talking about how horrible Stormfront is and how they need more money to combat it.

I think actually monitoring Stormfront is something they'd rarely do, and there are three reasons for this. First, it would be actual work, much harder than googling for wacist words and giving a report on the wacism as measured by number of hits. Second, it might expose them to another point of view which might contaminate them. Third, they don't consider Stormfront a dangerous enemy group, but an Outer Party puppet that would never dare to do more than hold rude protests. Similar to Fred Phelps.

--

Norway's largest non-tabloid newspaper, the Evening Post (Aftenposten) handed Mencius Moldbug free points when its editor wrote in a column: "Good thing it wasn't a Muslim or the proles might have become xenophobic and realized that we were full of shit."

The editor didn't actually say "proles", of course. What he said was "No matter how insistently politicians and other opinion-formers pointed out that this was the act of an extremist and that Muslims cannot be held responsible for criminals, much of our society would have had a crisis of confidence."

Well, this prole is becoming xenophobic and realizing that the opinion-formers are in fact full of shit.

Right-wing terrorism is illegitimate because it's ineffective. It's ineffective because its political result is to contract the political freedom and influence of conservatives (extremist or moderate).

It's ineffective, um, until it's not i.e. until its target has been eliminated and is thus unable to "contract the political freedom and influence of conservatives."

Slaughter that serves no purpose is sadistic, insane, terrible. Slaughter for purpose is the very nature of war, and cannot be separated from it. Since right-wing terrorism does not work, it is illegitimate as a tactic of war. Since left-wing terrorism does work, it is perfectly legitimate. Thus, OBL is legitimate and ABB is not.

ABB certainly believes the slaughter will serve a purpose. The purpose may be something with a relatively long time frame.

There's no reason to take argumentation over experimentation. This is an unfolding experiment that may eventually reveal whether or not it served a purpose.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just retarded, but I feel a movement growing, a convergence. When Mencius is citing Roissy, and Roissy is talking immigration, has not a movement coalesced?

Can't the massive popular European backlash against immigration be the very pincer movement that you, Mencius, describe? They have non-violent anti-immigration parties; now they have violent anti-immigration extremists.

The argument seems to be getting out.

And it appears that many (most?) of the Norwegians killed were non-white immigrants. That could really spin things. Politically active immigrants are particularly odious.

This still is a classy blog, so long as you stay the hell out of the comments. One in five or so is topical, and about one in two of those actually adds to the conversation; the balance consists of a bunch of men who aren't nearly as heterosexual as they believe themselves to be, each attempting to convince all the others that he's got the largest and most imposing penis of all, and I don't know about you but I left that silly locker-room shit behind with junior high school. (Though I do have to admit I've yet to quite exhaust the amusement potential of sneering at grown men who act like sixth-graders, right down to the obviously invented claims of vast sexual prowess.)

I don't think Breivik said anything about his plans beforehand at Stormfront or anywhere else. It seems that in online discussions he was a run-of-the-mill anti-Islam conservative nationalist, and nothing in his postings suggested that he would go on a murderous rampage.

Anon 9:03-4 - That he chose Stormfront to post his manifesto is interesting.

But it doesn't count as a warning in advance. The manifesto ends "this is my last entry 22 July". That means he spent eight months writing it - not posting it. A "warning" would be if the guy had posted his manifesto in January and/or was a regular in Stormfront or, I dunno, Gates of Vienna bouncing his more murderous ideas off the others. As we now know, when he went to "our" blogs, he gave exactly zero hints as to what he was planning.

I recall making exactly one serious visit to Stormfront, in the 15+ years I've had a presence on the 'Web. And that was for oppo research, two years ago; maybe it has a higher-end clientele nowadays. So maybe someone else can enlighten us on what files get uploaded there.

But to me, the forum looked like the exercise yard for an East German lunatic asylum. I wouldn't be surprised if 1500-word Nazi manifestos get posted there every week.

Zimri, I don't think he posted his manifesto to Stormfront. An hour or so before the attacks he e-mailed it to thousands of people all over Europe (he explains in the manifesto how he used several Facebook accounts to obtain e-mail addresses of nationalist politicians and activists), and one of the recipients must have posted it to Stormfront.

If I may make a Meta-UR comment: please, Moldbug, could you PLEASE moderate these comments? At least delete the trolls, the immature flamewars, and the offtopic bullshit.

Maybe some of the trolls can be left here, to show everyone Leftist tactics in blogs like this. But I don't see what "Aaron, not only is my sexual prowess vast, but its effectiveness is undiminished by vast distances." (to pick the most recent) adds to the topic at hand.

THE MOVIE AND BOOK (or manifesto) ARE FAKE!!!!here is the letter I am sending to everyone when i discovered this fact.

IF you download the PDF “2083 a european declaration of independence” and scroll to page 14 you see the following text supposedly written by Anders Breivik — “Political correctness now looms over western european like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right”

Scroll to page 6 and you will find the following text —“Political correctness has now taken over american society LIKE A COLOSSUS . It has taken over both political parties.”

That is just a short outtake, the whole paper was FAKED, I can only assume that this movie is FAKE as well.

This paper which concerns “PC” was not written by Anders.

This so-called manifesto was clearly copied whole cloth by someone with an agenda to paint this killer as an “anti-muslim” extremist.I suggest a correction be placed in the blog or totally erase the mention as it is clearly FAKE.

Zimri, yes, that essay by William Lind was included by Breivik in his book. At the end of the essay Breivik cites as his source the url "http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay.aspx", which no longer exists but according to Google used to contain the William Lind essay. Breivik's manifesto is largely a copy-paste job, something he does not even attempt to hide. It was sent to thousands of people BEFORE the attacks, and includes a diary detailing Breivik's actions during the past few years, so obviously it's genuine.

Too bad he didn't discover UR, I think this site should be required reading for many in the pro-Western civ, anti-jihad blogosphere.

You just can't fight what you don't understand. And Mencius' diagnosis of Democracy and Universalism is brilliant, even if I still am a little skeptical of neocameralism - at least until we get an actual neocameralist country/sovcorp.

"That is, you obviously are intelligent yet emit things that only a moron would say, like the above."Perhaps it's best to take in UR as an odd variety of performance art, where saying absurd things and (sometimes) crafting elaborate support for them is part of the fun.

Where does the idea that Breivik is a fundamentalist Christian come from? It is mentioned, for example, in this otherwise pretty good NY Times article. All of his writings suggest that he is a "cultural Christian" at best.

Here are some economic ideas of our proud "right wing nutjob". He does not sound much like a reactionary to me - more as a member of the left wing of the British Labour party in 1955 who read Spengler and Carlyle:

"All globalist companies will be nationalised (a minimum of 50,1% ownership must be redistributedto EF governments hands (combined) at any given time, for their respective countries). Investors with majority control who refuse this re nationalisation process will have their respective corporation expelled from the European Federation monetary zone".

"Phase out diesel/benzin vehicles (and thus end our dependency on Muslim oil) and focus oncommercialising electric cars/battery cells. This will be a lot more significant problem in theUS due to their decentralised infrastructure but much easier in Europe."

"Studies have indicated that as a conflict progresses and develops (civil war etc) and the masses flock to gold this development contributes to a downturn in national economies.

"Great Britain and Scandinavia,which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium,which remained on gold much longer. Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country's severity of its depression and the length of time of its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, including developing countries."

"...a welfare state will work perfectly well intertwined with capitalistic doctrines as long as the country is monocultural/the social cohesion level is at an acceptable level. A welfare state would never work in the US due to the lack of social cohesion, because they have large minority groups who are allowed parallel cultures, norms and ethics."

"Blindly opposing welfare is an American neo-Con doctrine and has nothing to do with nationalism. There are certain aspects of modern civilisation and common decency which require degrees of state welfare. It is the way it is legislated and managed which is crucial."

"...the US model is an extreme variant, almost resembling a pure laissez faire model. 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are now in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. The top 10 percent of Americansnow earn around 50 percent of the national income"

"While capitalistic principles should be protected, it should be somewhat regulated so that it benefits other members of the tribe (Scandinavian light model)."

(A) The constant sexual metaphors (bitch, sodomy, alpha versus beta), etc., ubiquitous even at the right end of the blogosphere, are getting old. Right-wingers should talk like right-wingers. (And we at least need to work out the differences between betas and omegas; they can't very well be the same thing.)

(B) "Rather, if you're going to change Norway into something new, you need the present ruling class of Norway to join and follow you. Or at least, you'll need their children."

This seems to pretty clearly violate the Steel Rule against grabs for official power.

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, but if you're swinging your ship around 179 degrees from passivism to Gramscian marches, you should at least make some kind of announcement so the passengers in ballroom don't tip over. (See, that's a luxury liner metaphor, very right-wing, without any mention even of consensual sex, which I am told still occurs though it's not worth speaking of for the usual pomo reasons.)

If Moldbug wants to openly praise Unamused and J.A.Y. for their flier distribution, that would be a welcome clarification in these nebulous times.

That letter boils down to OBL saying that he intends to defend a memetic "kin" group i.e. Muslims against assaults by out-groups and to attain sovereignty for it. There's nothing leftist about it.

He threatens chaos and destruction if the US does not withdraw its influence from the Middle East and abandon its ally Israel. This is a classic Leftist goal - precisely what the Soviet Union sought throughout the Cold War. Figure it out already, duh.

Maybe you can point us to the occasion where Nelson Mandela killed a hundred Afrikaner children at their National Party summer camp before you start drawing up equivalencies.

You have the shadow of a valid point, which is that there is underlying or not-so-underlying violence behind all political movements. That does not make them all equivalent. As you yourself seem to be aware of, many left-wing "terrorists" like Mandela eventually become statesmen, while right-wing terrorists are invariably shitbirds, whether or not the manage to seize power.

It remains a mystery why anyone of intelligence or other quality would want to align themselves with the shitbird party. Maybe the hypocrisy of the self-righteous liberals is unbearable -- that seems like a rather weak reason for putting yourself on the side of idiots who commit mass murderers of children.

Left wing terrorism is a genuine cry: we are the oppressed, we will destroy the powerful. This society is no good, we must be rid of it. I hate those in power, their authority must be subverted.

The problem is that "the powerful" today are the Left, not the Right, and the oppressed are on the Right, not the Left. The society today that is "no good" is a Leftist society not a Rightist one. By your logic, Right-wing terrorism is a "genuine cry" of the oppressed against the powerful.

Right wing terrorism, like this guy, has a subtle contradiction: I love my country, but I'm destroying it. I respect those in power, but I will subvert them. I want to protect my Nordic heritage, so I will kill Nordic children.

There is no contradiction because Right-wing terrorists, from their perspective, are not attacking their country, they are attacking the ruling elite that is destroying their country. The enemies of the Nordic race are the leftist white Nordics who run Norway.

As you yourself seem to be aware of, many left-wing "terrorists" like Mandela eventually become statesmen, while right-wing terrorists are invariably shitbirds, whether or not the manage to seize power.

Nah, Left-wing terrorists (including Mandela) remain shitbirds even when they seize power and the international Left slobbers all over them as supposed "statesmen". Arafat was always a scumbag, murderer, sodomite and thug even after he got his pathetic Nobel Peace Prize.

Olave: I think that Moldbug is still working through his practical plan of action.

I'll give it a go:

1. Gently reintroduce to elite whites, Asians, and Jews the Reactionary position, up to now erased from our political canon except in GoogleBooks. [Done. There's Moldbugites all over the 'web now.]2. Keep digging up literature which supports this position, and feed this to the aforementioned group. [Also, done.]3. Troll, troll, troll. Get Reactionary comments into the discourse, at least online. Get others to troll alongside. [In progress... but not by Moldbug - at least, not effectively. Moldbug started as a troll (on Two Blowhards). But Moldbug was never good at this. Unamused from The Park is much, MUCH better.]4. Unite the Vaisyas with the Xatyras. [Moldbug hasn't recognised them as a caste. This is my personal term for John McCain and the currently-neocon military. "Spartiate" will also do. #4 is what Pat Dollard does... poorly.]5. Let this democracy fail. [Done. Prematurely.]6. Step in. PROFIT!

Somewhere between 3 and 6 is the "?" stage. I hope that "?" is not #4.

[By the way, just as Moldbug never accepted 1688, I never accepted the unification of Vaisya and Helot into the "Prole" caste. VAISYAS UEBER ALLES]

Exactly. He is saying that he intends to defend a memetic "kin" group i.e. Muslims against assaults by out-groups and to attain sovereignty for it. There's nothing leftist about this.

Wake up, bonehead, the objective is Leftist and the method used to achieve it is Leftist. AQ's goal is not merely inherently Leftist, but is supported by the international Left. It just doesn't get more Left than that!

I suppose in your world, Mao Zedong was not a Leftist before 1949 because he was defending a memetic "kin" group (Chinese) against assaults by out-groups (Japanese) and to attain sovereignty for it, and Castro was (and is) not a Leftist because he was defending his Cuban "kin" group against assaults from American imperialism.

I disagree. I don't think defending a memetic "kin" group against assaults by out-groups and trying to attain sovereignty for the group is "Leftist." And I don't think methods can be definitively "Leftist" or "Rightist."

In Mao's case he was defending an actual genetic kin group i.e. Han Chinese, not a memetic one. Mao and the Chicoms then, and the Chicoms today, were basically national socialists, and it's extremely lazy to completely characterize them as Leftist when considering their fascistic, nationalistic, racialist aspects.

> In Mao's case he was defending an actual genetic kin group i.e. Han Chinese, not a memetic one. Mao and the Chicoms then, and the Chicoms today, were basically national socialists, and it's extremely lazy to completely characterize them as Leftist when considering their fascistic, nationalistic, racialist aspects.

I think you have a point. I'd like to see the other anon explain what the radical difference is between NS and post-barbarossa USSR. Both were highly interested in suppressing Jewish power. Both supported trad art (postwar Stalinist architecture is really not bad, by the standards of other postwar high-cult architecture). Both were pretty anti-Christian - although I think the Sovs were just trying to suppress the old order and gather all power unto the new, whereas the NS had a radical enmity for Christian universalism and selflessness-ism, following Nietzsche and various heirs of Nietzsche.

What's really different I guess is the economic systems, but I'm not so certain about them. I'm not sure how much the differences really mattered. One thing I really do wonder is why USSR never pulled a Deng, that is converted to capitalism. Perhaps this decision had something to do with the nature of Slavs and perhaps Jews as opposed to Han.

Of course NS expansionism had an old-school imperialist rationale where USSR expansionism/imperialism notionally had some other, more or less opposite rationale - but does that matter? I say no, it really means quite little.

Without meaning offense, other anon, I wonder just how radically, how iconoclastically you have ever pondered this thing. I never had til some months ago.

I might also suggest that pre-barbie USSR was /also/ mighty similar to NS and post-barbie USSR. Only it served Jews and suppressed Russian nationalism and talented Russians/Ukrainians, instead of serving Slavs or Germans and suppressing Jews. The three are pretty much the same! Not every one of them was equally 'extreme' or equally militaristic; they aren't identical. Ton of common ground, though.

Now, I don't know what the hell Mao was trying to do with his screwed-up economic ideas and misadventures. He was certainly a lot better at war. Consequently I myself am not really able to evaluate his intentions.

In fact, I was thinking last night - you could even throw in the Kaiserreich and Old Russia. Are they really so different from the three I have just quasi-'experimentally' lumped together? The main difference is that they existed in a world that was way less fucked up, as well as less technologically advanced/volitile, and their activity was accordingly less violent and radical. They also adhered to the old Christendom rather than any new philosophies.

But I really think the main philosophy of all five was power - and race. Authoritarian race power. Suppressing Jewish power was certainly a prominent activity of both of those two /ancien/ scepters, moderate though their acts were.

Needless to say, all five had enemies abroad in addition to the whole Gentile-Jewish dynamic. I certainly don't mean to leave that out of account.

They were five power centers first, I think, more or less - and ideological formations second. People didn't say, well, lets go on having Russia, since we have this great ideology. I think a much more important phenomenon is the molding of the ideology to fulfill the needs of the power centers vis-a-vis both their subjects and other power centers.

The modern US of course has some multiplicity of power centers not quite equal to 1.00 -- and considerably less close to 1.00 than was the case in the Kaiserreich or the Tsardom. Similar can be said of Britain in 1939 or 1900.

In any case we probably all agree with MM that the far right we know, whatever it may be and whatever leftism may be (if anything), has no propaganda power and therefore the attack by the Norseman carries no power. (Not in his favor anyway.)

Why /don't/ we have a mass propaganda machine? I don't believe MM has ever quite answered this. Why don't we have ten great universities full of star researcher-rhetoricians, why don't we have an important newspaper or a TV station (I understand Fox News's views are the same as the median American, so it is not actually right of the public let alone far right). Why don't we just have a fantastic 'TV' station on the internet, where presumably there is no licensure hoops to jump through? For the nonce I am asking these questions not in an activist sense, but merely in the mode of inquiry: why is it thus and thus, and not otherwise?

"Moldbug started as a troll (on Two Blowhards). But Moldbug was never good at this"

Some have wondered if that Great Books for Men character at Roissy's isn't Moldbug. Later I'll try to paste in his poem that starts off with "to all you cat ladies and nerdboys in your moms basements..." and ends with a reference to Dante's "Vita Nova."

to all the spinsters with catswho teh fed tricked into spinsterhood/serving debt lxolllozlzlto all the fanboys in ther single mom’s basementswhose dads they never knew because the fed tookawy fatehrhood lzozlzlto all the broken famileswho were split up by the need to make two salaries to feed the kidsto all aging necon womenz celeberating secretive tapings of butthex without teh girlths conthent lzozllzlzozlzl they tircked you tooto all the spinster chix again i am sorry they sdesouled youin asscokcing sessins drugged you up on prozactold you to abort your kids no wonder your’re d[pressed and all fucjked up no lozlzlzlzling heremy heart goes out to you while tucker max & goldman sax laugh zlzolzlzltoo all the aborted fetushes we ask for forgiveness we deserve not and to all those tricked into aborting the gift of life lzozllzllzl we forgive u too and pray for teh fethuses, but not in school as prayer is illegal in school lozlzllzlzto all those inthe rising genertaion who will have to pay off their parents cultural and monetary debts lzozlz war isn’t fun but it’s part of teh fed’s fiat bubble cycle lzozlzllz so like after th e country goes bust the war starts in the ultimate pump and udmp scheme you thought enron/worldcom/fannae mae was bad lolzozlzlz just you wait lzozlzlll i hope not and ai pray for peace lozlzlz maybe we can all learn to live and get along but i think we would have to start with truth and nobility and honor and ocurage and virtue and not with fiat debt and butthex lozlzlzl that’s just nmy gues from reading heroduts and the great boooks and classis in greek and latin zlzolzllzlzl

and the bible too about sodom and gomorroah did yuknow taht sodomycame form sodom and gonnoreah came from gommroah? lzozllz kidding about that second one i doubt it did but maybe who knows i have never had eitehr sodomy nor gonorreah and i ahve never been to sodom nor gomoorrah

sodom must;ve been a funny place lzolzlozolllzzll and a crazy party or two and the editor in chiefstress priscilla painton at simon and schuster would have fit right in publishing tucker max’s books yah i betin gmorrah they had a tower of babel with the ofices of simon and schuster at the top across the hall form the fed lzozlzlzllzlzlzlzllzlzlz

sometimes i wonder if poets and prophets can still change the world?

or have they trainde too, too many women to hate, and dumbed down and drugged up too many menz? have they destoryed too many fathers and killed to many families? have the y deocnstructed tyoo many books and spilled too much blood and aborted too many fetuthes as one is one too many. have they prescribed ritalin to too many cretaive sols in chool in prozac to too many who need to be depressed and face it when they abort fetuses as god gave us feelings and makes us not pay attention to boring stae corproate teachers as all creativity comes from not paying attention to the state lzozlzzll and now it is diagnoses as a diseas lzozlzlz.

lozlzlzzlzl

well juust wanted to say i luv u all and nice 2 know ya and welcomes abords lzozlzl

and 2 asnwer my own above questionslet me jsut sayteh great bookswouldn’t be greatif they weren’t immortaland they offer us redemptionthe moment we start living by tehir ideasland epic higher storiesso put down your hate and your secretive butthex tapeand pick up a crossand come follow meand let me shoulderyour burdenfor my yoke is lightdante wrote la vita nuova–the new lifeand it is time 4 u to find your new lifefor to loseth one’s old way is to fuind the new pathso do not fearlozlzlzlzlzlz omg wtf am i saying lzozlzlzi almost blew my cover here as teh messiah lzozlzllll i hide it beind all my lzozlzllzlzlzlzlzlzlles but a couple of you ahve caught on lzozlzlzlzllzlzl

Ironically, I'm pretty sure both "potato" commenters missed a trick. I of course thought "potato" was like "apple" or "Oreo" in the US (something that's one color on the outside and another on the inside, used as a derogatory term for poseurs or the deceptive.) But I'm pretty sure I was wrong. ABB certainly seems to be referring to himself and others who oppose Muslims as "potatoes."

And I think that the Norwegian commenter is right, but doesn't quite understand what a "wigga" is. Norwegians are in fact very fond of potatoes and the term is associated with them (even by other Scandinavians who aren't quite such spud fans.) So it's not like "wigga," because it doesn't apply only to Norwegians of long-time European lineage who are trying to act like something else, it applies to all Norwegians of long-time European lineage. Its closest cultural equivalent in US terms is probably "whitey" or "cracker."

If you want a quick informal course in Euro-Norwegian and Euro-Scandinavian popular culture, go to the wonderful webcomic "Scandinavia and the World" (satw.com) and read through its archive. It's very funny and surprisingly informative.

That is not an issue for the MSM reporting the membership of the mass murdererAnders Breivik in the Norwegian Masonic Lodge I can understand. But this is also the case with the anti-jihad blogs, which is strange. His status as a Mason is now discussed only on the blogs of traditional Catholics and the Masons themselves. Is this oddity not worth at least a little consideration? Would it not also an excellent relief strategy for the Anti Jihad blog scene under fire now? A-la: The guy was not only reading our blogs but also a valued member of the "humanist brothers". Why are they then not also under suspicion? -

Why is nobody having this argument? My guess in this regard at the end.

First on Breivik: On one of his photos he poses as a Masonic. In his manifesto it says that he was recently to be initiated in the combined fourth and fifth Degree of the Norwegian lodge, what he had to decline because he was already in the final preparations for his slaughter feast. I.e. He was third-degree Mason. According to him, the lodge was "unfortunately" not political, but dominated by a Christian and socially conservative environment, in which he felt fine. As you may know,the degrees 1-3 of Masonry are outside degrees. Would Breivik be initiated in the fourth and fifth Degree, he might have noticed that Freemasonry is not as apolitical as he thought. And that the roots of cultural Marxism and multiculturalism go deep and are nourished from the progressivist idea treasure of enlightenment, which would be inconceivable without the Masons (and which can also be put on a "conservative" mask). I do not think that Breivik wanted this to know. Because ideas cannot be shot and his demonic viciousness needed target coordinates of flesh and blood.

Describing himself as a Christian, "but not very religious", and to imagine the lodge for a Christian organization is only possible in countries that have been prepared for centuries by Protestantism for the wickedness of godlessness and where "Christian" became a completely diffuse term. This leads on to my hunch, why the Anti-Jihad scene is so shy about the issue of Freemasonry: This scene is primarily anchored in culturally Protestant / Puritan influenced countries, in which even Masons can belong to a "culturally conservative" environment. This scene is not aware of the inherently heretical, progressive, anti-Christian and atheistic character of Protestantism / Puritanism / Gnosticism and Freemasonry, because otherwise they would have to call the "conservative" founding myths of their own culture in question. This kind of "conservatism" contains the seeds of the modern attack in itself and is, at best, helpless or just plain cynical.

Yes, there are. They are the ones ABB is complaining about, the ones he quotes somebody talking about thusly:

"Everyone [who] holds a Norwegian passport is fully Norwegian”

And then adds his own thought:

"Which means that even Somalis (with a Norwegian passport) who chews qat all day, beats his wife and sends half his benefits to al-Shabaab should be viewed as a fully that."

I did not mean the phrase to be in any way derogatory and I realize it is awkwardly constructed. I couldn't think of a less awkward construction that didn't sound considerably more racist. I am open to suggestions.

It's pretty obvious that almost everyone commenting here is way past omega in terms of creepiness. That goes for pretty much the whole white power movement and anything remotely similar. Face it, if you belong to the dominant ethnic group and still have to whine like a minority, you must be pretty much at the bottom of the barrel.

Thomas Fink said . . .[Breivik's] status as a Mason is now discussed only on the blogs of traditional Catholics and the Masons themselves . . . Why is nobody having this argument? . . . [Perhaps because Anti-Jihadism] is primarily anchored in culturally Protestant / Puritan [and therefore heavily Mason] influenced countries

This is really interesting analysis.

Perhaps related, one of the oddities of MM is his insistence on calling the modern system "the Cathedral" rather than "the Lodge." This makes no sense, either historically or ideologically. It is remarkable how rarely the word "Freemason" appears on his blog (according to Google, not a single time from MM's mouth and rarely in comments). Given his interests and the interests of the Masons, this is quite odd, no?

@Thomas Fink - Scandinavian freemasonry should not be confused with the political freemasonry of France, Italy, and Latin America, which is historically anticlerical and left-wing/"progressive" - the historic bugbear of conservative Catholics, with some justification. Neither should it be mixed up with the charitable and apolitical Anglo-American variety.

The degrees of Swedish freemasonry (which are worked in Norway) are Christian and royalist in character. The English-language website of the Grand Lodge of Sweden describes it as "an organisation, where men from various walks of life meet in a Christian spirit to fully develop their personal maturation potential, and in dignified circumstances to meet fellow men." See:

http://www.frimurarorden.se/eng/index.html

The highest distinction of the Swedish craft is the Order of Charles XIII, an order of knighthood of which the Swedish king is lord and grand master, and which may only be conferred upon persons of the Protestant faith who also hold the highest degree (the XIº) of the Swedish rite.

Breivik's association with Scandinavian freemasonry is consistent with his reported background as a small business owner and former member of an anti-tax, pro-market economy party that is probably as far to the right as it is respectably possible to be in Norway - i.e., thoroughly bourgeois.

Zimri: I never accepted the unification of Vaisya and Helot into the "Prole" caste.

MM never unified them. Starting with his original 5-caste system, he lumped Optimates into Vaisyas, or just removed them as unimportant, and unified Helots and Dalits.

I just went to check the archives and this is rather harder to verify than I thought. It would be nice if MM would do an update post. I note that everyone hated the three-way split he proposed (Eloi/Morlock/Proles), and not even MM continued its use. You can find him using "prole", though, and "brahmin" even after positing its replacement. This shows he has taste, since these are both great labels.

Personally, I support the use of "prole" for "vaisya", and the combined Dalit/Helot grouping, whatever we want to call it. (NAMs, basically -- an awful acronym, but one which even MM seems to find pertinent.) We should stick with "brahmin", which has just the right connotations.

Of course he has. The answer, in three words: democracy, mass media. MM wouldn't put it that way; he doesn't seem to perceive the role of the mass media as that notable. He prefers to focus on intellectuals, taking for granted that mass media exist for them to disseminate their views.

I.e: Universalism is the faith of the Brahmins, the intellectual caste whose global dominance has been unchallenged arguably since World War II, and certainly since the end of the Cold War. Since an intellectual is defined by his or her ability to influence the opinions of others, it's not hard to see why democracy is such an effective political formula. Democracy means that popular opinion controls the State; intellectuals guide popular opinion; ergo, intellectuals guide the State.

Here's another good posting. (Ignore the title -- of course there is liberal media bias, but it is relative to the views of the average citizen, not the media.)

I agree that academics and media control public opinion, only I'm asking what are the reasons why we don't have our own successful propaganda complex. We being the far right and mid right whereas the neocons and WSJ types I would call near right.

I guess there used to be National Review, only it wasn't that 'big' in the way CBS-NBC-ABC-Fox are big, along with NPR - or NYT WP, WSJ. In any case I guess it mostly ceased at some point to purvey any sort of rightism I would care about. Namely at the point when all the anti-immigration types were dumped.

Obviously there are rightist universities but we know that they are all christian and have low prestige.

Mencius has noted that all universities agree on all political and metapolitical matters; there are no schools of thought. And he mocked this in terms of the NS word Gleichschaltung or coordination, but of course he didn't mean that there is literally an NS-style Gleichschaltung by force of law - well, actually there is one in a modest degree, in recent years at least, in Europe, but there is none in the US.

I don't think he has really explained why a mid right newspaper doesn't get founded, and prosper. I guess there is some talk radio which is fairly 'big' in audience and could perhaps qualify as mid-right.

If we take the zero coordinate from median public opinion, then I think NPR is clearly not mid left but hard left. Fox is near right... and the other three tv networks are mid left, having a set of attitudes that contrasts rather starkly with that of the population, more especially with (rather Whiter) subpopulations such as voters, or those who can meet an absolutely minimal standard of coherence when it comes to discussing stuff.

I agree with Olave that the sexual metaphors are getting rather threadbare. I’ve never believed that this Alpha/Beta scheme referred to anything real, anyway. What will it say about those who spoke this way, once ceaseless time has reduced these blogs and comments to just another bit of “slow history?”

And speaking of slow history, I must also disagree with the characterization of ABB’s actions as ineffective, by reminding all and sundry not to overlook the most popular fast-history factoid of all: Nobody would have thought the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would have accomplished anything, either. Nobody, that is, except some oppressed young nationalists. Remind you of anybody?

You see, we’re getting very close now to an historical discontinuity. In the neighborhood of the singularity, cause and effect does not always operate as it does elsewhere.

> I’ve never believed that this Alpha/Beta scheme referred to anything real, anyway. What will it say about those who spoke this way, once ceaseless time has reduced these blogs and comments to just another bit of “slow history?”

Surely you don't think all men are equally attractive to women. That would be insane. You must be objecting to the scale. Well, no one believes there is actually a discrete binary distribution; it's just a shorthand. When people get 'longhand' they talk greater and lesser beta, omega, greater omega, lesser alpha, etc. Personally I greatly prefer percentiles, which are hopelessly beta - only, intellectual life is another dimension, one where spending Saturday night on google books is totally fucking alpha.

(A) the confusion over whether beta refers to a sissy boy who never has a girlfriend until he's in a retirement home (and the girl is too), or whether it refers to people that are married with children. Among whites, betas seem to reproduce quite a bit more than betas, which will serve to further increase HBD (i.e., drive the races apart in behavioral terms, for cultural or genetic reasons it matters not).

(B) the confusion over whether alphas have to be leaders of men or just dominators of women. The case of that college girl who rated all the boys she had slept with was pretty instructive: she preferred athletes. To me, it was an obvious case of wanting to be with betas who had nice bodies, but everybody said she obviously preferred alphas for their dominant personalities. I wondered (in writing, IIRC) how many college ball teams are composed entirely of captains.

Betas follow the leader, do the homework, get the job done, and make (white) babies. Alphas are pretty rare (leaders HAVE to be rare; that is a fact of life with modern population densities), but there are probably plenty of them (a cousin of mine, Roissy, that guy Asstabulous or whatever's he's called, etc.) who never procreate.

Says me, if a guy leaves men bored or annoyed and gets lot of easy sex, he's not a bloomin' alpha. An alpha's confidence should be infectious to every everyday guy. Charisma is the opposite of boorishness. Thus we see that the alpha is basically extinct.

So ... the nerdy engineer in rumpled clothing and the non-captain, minimally promiscuous athlete are both betas, for approximately the same reasons. Each both has a shot at raising a family with a woman who ... how should I put this?! With a woman who likes him.

It's a weird symptom of anti-intellectualism AND/OR intellectual self-loathing to say a pretty-good athlete is "alpha" while a guy with a techy job is "beta/omega".

You have a point, but the flaw in your argument is that you are confused about what the dominant group is.

In the US, at least, I assure you that it is not white men. Individual white men hold a disproportionate amount of economic power and (diminishing rapidly) political power. However, at the level of the average person, being a white man is the single largest handicap one can have in almost any social conflict or confrontation.

A little more detail on Mandela's Church St Bombing:http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/2007/12/church-street-bombing.html"However the fact of the matter is that the Church Street Bombing did occur - Mandela did consent to it - (he mentions this in his book). I was living in Pretoria at the time and my father's office was a few blocks from the site of the bombing. I remember this event very clearly. Church Street is the Yonge Street of Pretoria - the bomb went off at rush hour on a Friday afternoon to ensure maximum civilian casualties. The carnage was awful. There were many people (both black and white) who were cut to shreds by the falling glass from the surrounding buildings. Regardless of how one wishes to justify this act, it was terrible atrocity and probably didn't do much to advance the anti-apartheid struggle."

"The entire spectrum of right-wing folk activism, from pointless whining through spectacular terrorism, is what Roissy would call "beta."

hahahaha SMACKDOWN

That NAILS it. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with GoV and Fjordman and Pam Geller and all the rest of them. Notwithstanding the very real services they have provided - but complaining and expecting someone else to fix it is all they know how to do.

I'm asking what are the reasons why we don't have our own successful propaganda complex

That is, you're asking why we're not in power. We are not in power because (a) we have democracy, getting ever more perfect, and (b) democracy is inherently destructive of order. Think of democracy as fire, and order as various burnable things.

In democracy, you can at least theoretically adopt a platform of increasing order. For example, you could campaign on the idea that we should be austere, and voluntarily retire our national debt. But for all it would be good for the nation, such a policy does nothing for you or your political supporters. You get no power. No new bureaucracies are created to naturally be filled with your supporters. And no new intellectuals are needed to justify your common-sense platform. It is common sense that running a deficit continuously is a bad idea.

Why would any intellectual join your reactionary movement? He would only if he doesn't need a job. I.e., if is an amateur, like me or you or MM. Or if he is independently wealthy. So you have cut off most of your talent right there. Intellectuals need jobs, just as anyone else, and they prefer intellectual jobs.

And that is in the internet era, where the medium supports amateur intellectuals. Before the Net, all media were big capital investments, so they could not be amateur. As such, only if they were funded by a living rich man of idiosyncratic views could they possibly remain non-progressive. And this is what we see: a handful of non-progressive institutions like the Reason foundation, funded by zillionaires. Mostly "mainstream" media, center-left politics. All the old money foundations captured by progressives.

This was a very interesting post. I guess the point is that those kids deserved to die for being communists, but the actual killing was strategically unwise because there is not a fascist movement in the Norwegian government to take advantage of the attacks.

The morality of this blog is often close to the borderline, but here you're basically advocating murdering teenagers. That's pretty fucked up Mencius.

Clemenceau it was, I believe, who said that the United States was the only nation to have proceeded immediately from barbarism to decadence, without an intervening period of civilisation. Ninety years later, the entire formerly civilised world seems more or less to share the condition of American decadence, in its current version.

The end of World War II left that world divided between the Bolshevik socialism of Russia and the soft fascism or functional socialism of FDR's New Deal. The other countries adopted one or the other, often making their own variations on the theme, or creating hybrids of the two. This especially described western Europe, which was not as red as the Soviet Union, but (with the exceptions of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal) a deeper shade of pink than the United States. If there was any benefit to this, it was that someone who was discontent with the system of government in his own country could, with more or less effort, flee to another one more to his taste.

The paradoxical character of the fall of the Iron Curtain has been that the nations have assumed a much greater ideological homogeneity. The Cathedral dominates everywhere. No barrier to exit like the Iron Curtain is now necessary, because there is no escape, no place to hide, from the prevalent secular progressive multi-culti orthodoxy. The egalitarian dream, if not completely realised, is in the process of being imposed, not by freeing the slave, but by enslaving the free. The two ways of proceeding, indeed, are portrayed as not differing in any significant aspect.

Whereas in the past someone like Breivik might have found a country that felt more hospitable, whither could he now escape? Anywhere he might turn is either the same stifling political correctness or "cultural Marxism" he deplored, or else the abysmal living standards and social dysfunction of the Third World.

I believe the explanation for Breivik's actions is very simple. He felt cornered, with nothing to lose. So, probably, do many other people who would not dream of doing what he did. The decadence typical of Europe and America is not unlike that of late antiquity, the time of Ammianus Marcellinus and Cassiodorus. We may compare the convoluted and elaborate literary style of today's leading academics to that of those ancient writers, and contrast both to the vigorous writing of two or three centuries earlier - the late Romans to that of the end of the Republic and the early empire, and our own punditocracy's to that of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We are witnessing the final spasms of the old Christian religious order just as the late Romans did the collapse of classical paganism. There are many other parallels.

The reality is that there is absolutely nothing we can do about any of this, any more than the Romans of the fourth or fifth century could about the decline of their civilisation. Breivik's error was that he thought he could. What futility! Our order will pass, and we cannot know what will replace it. We may only hope that whatever does will preserve the best of it, as once the medieval monasteries did the literature of ancient Rome and Greece, that a better age may learn from our errors.

Moldbug is making the distinction between legitimate acts of war, on the one hand, and the bizarre Marquis of Queensbury rules we have been trying to apply to armed conflict for the past century or so. They are not the same. He goes into quite some detail on this in the part where he talks about "natural laws of war."

Since no matter how he denies it our gracious host is not a psychopathic nihilist, I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't think those kids "deserved" to die. But in war, as in life, shit happens. If this were a legitimate act of war then they would be legitimate targets. Since it wasn't, even under his rather Darwinian approach to the law of war, they weren't, and this was nothing more than rationalized murder.

Nony 10:22, your interpretation is close but not quite on. It is not that MM thinks those kids "deserved" to die. He thinks that they were "legitimate" targets in the war for political power in Norway. Dessert doesn't enter into it.

Now, I would be all for pinging MM on the matter of "legitimacy". If anything determines legitimacy, it would seem to be the existing law, and clearly murderous terrorism is against the law. So, I would not call them legitimate, but then I feel Dresden wasn't legit either. But as they say: inter arma enim silent leges.

But perhaps that is just semantic quibbling. Who determines whether or not "we" are at war? I might agree with MM if he changed "legitimate" to, say, "high-value".

Further, it was not so much that they were communists that would make them good targets. It was that they were ambitious in a world where communism is the only way to get ahead politically. In the long run, many of their cohort will turn from communism as they age. But right now, they still hope to ride that horse.

In an hypothetical Norway in which such terrorism might possibly "work", most of those kids wouldn't have been there -- they'd have already been on the right-wing side.

Why do people keep saying Moldbug says those kids were legitimate targets? He specifically says they were NOT legitimate targets.

Now, he does say that under some circumstances kids *are* legitimate targets, so if that's what you mean, it's a fair cop. But anyone who says that he said that these particular kids were is literally saying the exact opposite of what he actually said.

Moldbug is making the distinction between legitimate acts of war, on the one hand, and the bizarre Marquis of Queensbury rules we have been trying to apply to armed conflict for the past century or so.

"The Norwegian Foreign Minister pronounced in 2010, that the country of 4,5 million inhabitants will have one million persons with immigrant background in 15-20 years."

"Norwegians are leaving East Oslo, as little girls on a daily basis are facing being called a whore, and in many schools there are practically no ethnic Norwegian children. In other words, several schools are seeing a percentage of up to 100% of foreign speaking pupils, some of them not knowing Norwegian when they start school."

US whites have become inured to this kind of ethnic cleansing/population replacement in their own country, but it's kind of a shock to see this happening to a small country that never harmed anyone.

FIRSTLeft-wing terrorism kills people because it is against oppression - they make a distinction between the innocent and guilty in "their terms". This guilty definition generally includes the power holding right-wing oppressors and their military extensions. They are making it because they want equal rights, fairness, basic social rights etc. I am not talking about the consequences (which can lead to more dictators) but the reasons.

On the other hand, right-wing terrorism kills in the name of oppressors to gain control and extend the power the oppressors. I guess we all agree on that point.

SECONDOBL is no way a left-wing terrorist. Myself, living in a 99% muslim country, is in fear of islamic fascism every day where in recent elections the right-wing islamic party got _half_ of the votes. The more the votes, the more the power they hold and the more the oppression on media and people.

OBL is islamic fascism in its purest form, he is anti-communist and anti-American, he wants the rules of islam. Just because he is anti-communist, it does not make OBL a right-wing terrorist just as since he is anti-American that does not make him left-wing terrorist. But by their purposes and acts, they can be defined as right-wing fascists (or terrorists) since they want their country to be ruled by the rules of islam and Quran, which are simply out-dated.

If you honestly believe the distinction you are making, you are arguing at cross purposes to the whole philosophy of this website. ALL "terrorists" see themselves as "freedom fighters." No exceptions. Al Queda might have what you consider right-wing philosophies underlying their actions, but they are part and parcel of the best Exeter Hall tradition, as our gracious host might put it.

ABB and his ilk can't work within the Exeter Hall framework. Not shouldn't, not wouldn't, can't. Can't, can't, can't. Won't work. Explaining why that is is a major goal of this website, and I won't try to summarize it in a single comment on a single essay.

so al qaeda is (was) more or less the temperance society with IEDs? you know, for some steely-eyed badass freikorps motherfuckers, you guys sure are big on moral relativism.

moldbug uses the famed collegiate-pussy trivialization technique ("oh yeah, but your shoes are leather!") to justify a spastic kill spree, by comparing it to "marxist" mass murder and purification. but right off the bat: "crimes" committed under stalin and mao were crimes committed by entire societies, acting on ancient revolutionary grievances, and against a clearly defined class enemy and mythos of class enmity (provided by marx). and that's not even the best part. sovietization and communization served the interest of unification and proto-americanization, in the same way hitlerization served the finally brought democracy to deutscheland.

but let's go back to your hero ABB. he's not even a real fascist, but a self-misunderstood, phony rage-of-the-lower-middle-class fascist, like your basic mma-fan stormfront cocksucker. his enemy is basically the marxist class enemy, euroliberals, whom he misconstrues (like you) as communists. (clearly he would have made his point better by wiping out 100 muslims, for reelz.)

as pointed out on auster's blog, he's a "nominalist" christian nationalist, who evidently favors some sort of ethnic conservative norwegian technocracy. cool. sounds like you guys, again.

the best part: he really speaks for no one, except the blogosphere. there is no political entity, no society, behind him. so his actions are not political at all, they're proto-political, or, better, nihilistic.

WTF was that about? Moldbug condemned him. I condemn him. He is a coward and a murderer. Even in a just war, killing which can't advance your military goals is evil. Hangin's too good for him. Burnin's too good for him. He should be torn into itty bitty pieces, and buried alive!

If you want to call me out for making a "hero" out of an alleged murderer, we can talk about Carl Drega. (Who had the right idea, just, as always, poor execution. If you'll pardon the expression.) ABB, not so much.

I'm not going to get into the whole "Euroliberals are the Marxist class enemy" thing. Again, showing why that's codswallop is a major theme of this website. I'm not going to make Moldbug's thesis arguments for him when he's written tens of thousands of words on the subject, most more eloquent than I could hope to achieve.

For all the proto-sexual obsession with violence you can see here (in both moldbug and his commenters, but he hides it better), I would guess that nobody here has been in combat or even so much as a bar fight. It's all wanking, no different from a bunch of pasty slugs playing D&D in their parent's basement and congratulating themselves on their +12 mace.

But of course there's always going to be someone, like the Norwegian shooter, who gets so far into the game that a real act of violence erupts. That's not politics, its a personality disorder.

Remember all those "Free Tibet" marches? Kinda strange how, of all oppressed people in the world (*cough*Darfur*cough*), the ones getting the most media exposure are those living in a comparatively well-off place?

Well... it looks like the Dalai Lama is a Marxist himself: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576389523194617398.html

Not that surprising, I was almost expecting it.

Apparently, some people think that Tibet will become a new commie Shangri-La once freed from dengian fascist capitalism that helps build railways and expressways over there.

Tip for oppressed people fighting for independence: be more to the left of your oppressors if you ever want to find the external support to remove them from power.

"For all the proto-sexual obsession with violence you can see here (in both moldbug and his commenters, but he hides it better), I would guess that nobody here has been in combat or even so much as a bar fight"

You must be new here. Moldbug has stated in his writings over and over that he is against violence. Kinda getting sick of the same ADHD sperglords coming into this blog, not having read the history, and then making half-assed assumptions.

latter anon, mayabe you should examine the sacred runes a little more closely, since moldbug (in this particular post and the next, anyway) seems to be saying the opposite: that all political speech -- let alone clearly incendiary political speech -- is, a priori, on a continuum with political violence.

indeed, for not owning up to this association is exactly why he's mocking fjordman and the sleestak robert spencer.

and, please, enough with the "you're new here" townie shit. this is the internet, not your local darts-and-skanks watering hole.

"latter anon, mayabe you should examine the sacred runes a little more closely, since moldbug (in this particular post and the next, anyway) seems to be saying the opposite"

Maybe you should learn to spell 'later', and 'maybe'.

Also, please provide some argumentation for your line of reasoning (especially the claim that you think Moldbug is making apriori). Saying it just is, isn't an argument, Mr Shmuel. So far you've come into this blog, made a strawman out of all its readers ("EVERYONE HERE IS A NAZI, LOL"), and added a couple of irrelevant bon mots.

Or maybe dropping red herrings and constructing shitty arguments and generally not engaging in good faith arguments is what you are here for ...

I'm curious as to what ethnic group the name 'Mittel Shmuel' is from. I can hazard a pretty good guess what it is, but I'd like to hear your explanation, before I choose to stop talking to a member of the one of the most deranged religious-ethnic groups on the planet (and that's why you are here right? to defend your ethnic group).

For anyone wondering, I've done some brief googling on our friend mittelwerk (do a search for mittelwerk + jew, he admits to being a, "... 3rd generation secular jew, from new york").

Looks like he is either a troll, or at least a person with pretty extreme beliefs. Over at John Robb's blog he was raging hardcore at white nationalists: https://uncontroversial.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/mittelwerkthreatenscannibalism/

I'm not a white nationalist by the way, but looks like mittelwerk doesn't argue in good faith (pretty evident from his conversation here as well, notice how he characterize everyone who disagrees with him as a white nationalist). Also looks like he has a high opinion of himself (bet he is raging reading this comment, come back with some more awesome bon mots mittel! that'll show us goyim!).

"The idea that any incremental political change, achieved by any sort of "activism" (from mass whining to mass murder), can advance this project in any way at all, is inherently retarded. It's as if you wanted to replace your horse with a BMW, so you start by cutting off one of your horse's hooves and whittling it into a crude, wheel-like disc.

Rather, any significant regime change can happen only in one step. The stable must become a garage. There is no way to have a combined stable and garage, which contains a means of transportation which is half a horse and half a BMW. There is no way to have a Norway which is half communist and half Crusader, let alone 99.9% communist and 0.1% Crusader."

I think Breivik was aware of the pincer-movement necessity posited by Mencius. He makes it clear in his manifesto that his actions are designed to be remembered in 50 years when, he thinks, there will be a political movement. His mistakes are two within the MM paradigm:(1) if the mass political movement he envisions occurs, it will necessarily be more leftism; (2) he just shot up the friends and family of the people that need to be converted/seduced for change to happen. This last is probably going to be damaging in unforeseen ways and may hurt any rightist movement in the country for the next two generations.

Essentially, I argue that Breivik intended to radicalize the left, so they would ram immigration down harder, hastening the backlash and collapse, and clarifying with whom responsibility for the immigration policy lies. I.e., formalist accountability.

This is an exception to the typical "no rightist terrorism" rule because with immigration, the right's victory and/or vindication is inevitable, and within a reasonably short timeframe.

That is a glib response. I said that the same sites which peddled his and their obsessions also peddled tosh about the Lisbon Treaty. Quite apart from the infantile drivel about conscription and suchlike, that tosh, in case you forgot, involved large helpings of isolationist political thinking.